CHIRANJEE LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. challenges the order dated 22-5-1996, whereby the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Cases at Jaipur stated the particulars of the offences under Clauses 8 and 10 of the Rajasthan Controlled Cloth (Sales and Distribution Control) Order. 1975, (the Order of 1975) and Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) punishable u/s. 7 of the Act. file ://D :\Prograrn Files\Crirnes\database\aa\aa\cmo 1998-4 (879 of 1996) .htrn 8/10/2006

(3.) Being of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient so to do for maintaining supplies of controlled cloth and securing its equal distribution and availability at fair prices the State Government, vide G.S.R. 87 dated 6-11- 1975, made the order of 1975. Clause 3 of the said Order empowered the Commissioner. Food and Supplies, Rajasthan or an Authorised Officer, to authorise any person or body of persons to be an authorised wholesaler or a Control Cloth holder in respect of controlled cloth for purposes of the Order. The wholesaler or Controlled Cloth shop holder, as the case may be was required to apply for issue of an authorisation in Form A in order to enable him to obtain the supply of the Controlled Cloth from the source specified by the Authorised Officer from time to time in the authorisation. By sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3 it was provided that after 31st January. 1976, no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with an authorisation issued under the Order of 1975. Before issuing the authorisation under Clause 3, the Authorised Officer was required to make such Investigation as he deemed fit and had the power to issue or refuse to issue the authorisation. Clause 5 of the Order of 1975 empowered the Authorised Officer to suspend or cancel and forfeit the security, deposited under Clause 4, on the contravention or attempt to contravene any of the provisions of the order or direction is sued there-under or any terms and condition of the authorisation by the person to whom the authorisation had been issued. Clause 11 required every dealer holding authorisation to maintain a true stock account in Form CT and also to correctly maintain a Daily Sales Register in Form "DTT. He was further required to submit to the Authorised Officer or to any other Authority to be specified by him in that behalf, a true monthly stock and sale return in Form E. Clauses 8 and 10 of the Order of 1975, which are alleged to have been contravened in the present case, provided as under: Clause 8, Purchase and Sale by authorised wholesaler.